Chelsea wish they only had £360mil debt after a decade. . That's one season these days. In the grand scheme of things, for half the premier League, £36 mill in one season isn't that scary. They can recover from it. If you let yourself lose £36mil every season you've only got yourself to blame when you finally go into administration. No one is going to buy the league going £36mil into debt. Now, at the lower end, £36 mil debt could be a gamble to avoid relegation and some clubs could get themselves into debt... But overall I don't think a £36 mill buffer is a big deal and it's the same for everyone.
https://fb.watch/qsyNwEBZBK/ What a recovery from a very serious injury by Bruno, once he realised UTD still had the ball
until they don't have it sure. but find me anyone mid to lower table who can afford 360mil of debt. therefore it is an issue. but if the revenues are allowed to be fake its the same end result. the fans are the ones to be protected
The purpose is to provide a level playing field and prevent abuse. It's not to force clubs to make good decisions.
I said ages ago that the sanctions should be written down so the outcome of investigations shouldn't be surprising but after the Everton case, the PL spokesperson said they weren't prepared to do that. What is clear now though is that Everton fans can stop claiming corruption and accept that they cheated and not one but two panels came to that conclusion.
but t's not. ffp is just a nice title. it's better to be called profit and sustainability rather than financial fair play. in 100 years or 50 years or whatever fans should want their kid to have the club they had. if that club is small then nothing says it will be able to compete with a big club unfortunately. we are not in the land of salary caps and such in the USA where in theory clubs have the same budgets.
Jayden Danns has played 34 minutes of senior football and has won more trophies than Harry Kane, who has played 49,320 minutes of senior football
I thought there was meant to be no appeal possible on these panel decisions? This reduction will certainly puff the chests of City's representatives.
not theres no further right of appeal after the appeal. aka no CAS. BTW. the ruling is clear, legally the Prem cannot enforce a non-cooperation charge. That's what the Everton ruling sys so the case for city has just fallen apart and city's lawyers will be all over this. I fully expect an injunction in the run up to the start of the case stating some of the charges were unlawful therefore the panel needs to be dissolved and a new panel put in to start again on the remaining charges that are not related to non-cooperation with inquiry.
I haven't read that, but if it's true then any lingering hope I had of seeing any kind of meaningful result has just evaporated.
its in the statement from this panel. they said the panel were legally incorrect to consider the fact Everton were less than Frank about their stadium losses as part of punishment. it might be different as the charge to city is specific non-cooperation however this sets a clear precedent thst you can be at least less than Frank about your finances. this panel has decided that legally they can't punish them on thst charge
I suppose that parallels legal cases where the accused is not obliged to cooperate with the investigation. But it helps their case if they do, as non-cooperation can result in adverse inferences. In other words, the more they refuse to cooperate, the more guilty they look.
But do they mean legally as in 'within their rules' or do they mean legally as in 'the law outside the game'?
I'm not saying you're wrong but can you post the evidence for this. I've just read the synopsis of the appeal board decision and it says that the appeal board "found the (independent) commission was right to dismiss Everton's claim that their cooperation with the PL over their spending should be seen as a mitigating factor." The thing the appeal board found in Everton's favour was that the original panel used not 'acting in good faith' when assessing their punishment but the appeal panel said it was just an honest mistake and not Everton breaching the good faith part of the PL rules. This has nothing to do with cooperating.
Holy crap! The cheapest tickets for the Liverpool game are $200! $200 for a meaningless friendly? That's before all the random fees and additions ticketmaster adds on- so probably closer to $250-$300. Couldn't get away with going without taking kids, so assuming it's really $250 after fees that would be $1000 to attend. Probably cheaper to fly to England and watch a game (without kids).
